1

Criminal Appeal Defective No. 111 of 2005

Reserved On.29.04.2022

Delivered On 06.06.2022

Court No. - 51

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 111 of 2005

Appellant :- Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia

Respondent :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Mahmmad Irfan

Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1.

This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated

29.11.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court

No.1, Mau in Session Trial No. 75 of 2003 (State vs. Ram Chhabi @

Chhabia,), Crime No. 187, 188 of 2003, under Sections 307 IPC and

Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Ghosi, Mau, whereby the appellant

Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia has been convicted under Section 25 Arms Act

and sentenced to two years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/-.

However, he was acquitted of charge under Section 307 IPC.

2. According to the prosecution version, on 20.04.2003 the police

received an information that one bandit Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia along

with his associates is staying at the house of one Ram Badan at village

Ahmadpur Asna and he may commit some heinous offence. On this

information, SHO Arjun Singh, S.S.I. Lal Bahadur Malviya and some

other police officials reached at village Asna and they left their vehicle

outside the village. At about 2.00 AM in night they reached near house of

Ram Badan and challenged the bandits and asked them to surrender. At

the same time one of the miscreant made firing at the police, however, all

police official escaped unhurt. The police party chased the miscreants and

one of them namely, Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia was apprehended, whereas

as his two companions succeeded in running away. In search, one country

made revolver and three live cartridges were recovered from him. The

2

Criminal Appeal Defective No. 111 of 2005

recovered revolver and cartridges were taken into possession vide

recovery memo Ex. Ka-1 and later on this case was got registered under

Section 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act.

3.

During investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared site plan of

the spot and recorded statement of witnesses. After completion of

investigation, the appellant/ accused was charge-sheeted for offence under

Section 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act.

4.

The accused / appellant was charged for offence under Section 307

IPC and 25 Arms Act.

5.

Prosecution has examined six witnesses. PW-1 Mahabeer Prasad

Dubey is complainant of the case, PW-2 Inspector Arjun Singh and PW-3

S.I. Lal Bahadur Malviya are witness of recovery. PW-4 constable Dukhi

Ram has recorded FIR and GD entry. PW-5 S.I. Deenanath Mishra and

PW-6 S.I. Raghav Ram Mishra have conducted investigation. After

prosecution evidence, accused-appellant was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the prosecution evidence and claimed false

implication. However, no evidence was led in defence.

6.

After hearing and analyzing the evidence on record, the trial court

convicted the accused-appellant Ram Chhabi @ Chhabia under Section

25 Arms Act and sentenced as stated above, however, he was acquitted of

charge under Section 307 IPC.

7.

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae, learned

A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

8.

Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that impugned judgment of

conviction is against the evidence on record. The Trial court not

appreciated the evidence in correct manner. There is no independent

witness of alleged incident, whereas the alleged incident took place in the

village. It was submitted that in the absence of any independent witness,

the testimony of police officials must not be believed. There are

3

Criminal Appeal Defective No. 111 of 2005

contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, which render their evidence

unreliable. It was further submitted that though as per the report of the

Jail, the accused-appellant has already under gone the sentence awarded

by the trial court but in view of above stated r